May 27, 2014

It happened in Madison. The moderator asked what gets in the way of an honest conversation about race, and Everett Mitchell opened up:

“I’ll be honest,” Mitchell began. “I think what gets in my way sometimes is my own fear and that I don’t trust white people. I don’t trust white women and actually I’m afraid. I was telling one of my friends the other day that … I won’t even allow myself to be in the same office with a white woman without the door open … where somebody can see me.... My greatest fear sometimes is to be seen as something even though I am not that at all.... That I am a brutal, black rapist, out of control, angry... That if I am passionate, I am angry. That if I raise my voice (it means) I am about to hurt you.”

That's the quote that made the news reports, and Mitchell seems to feel burned by the whole thing, because now people think "that I walk around all day mistrusting white people, and that I don’t want to be around white women, and I don’t want to be in the same place with white women."

Mitchell feels burned by the whole thing, because now people think "that I walk around all day mistrusting white people, and that I don’t want to be around white women, and I don’t want to be in the same place with white women."

@Crack Well, what would you do if these nice NPR-moderated Madison folks wanted you to sit on a panel before 500 Madisonians at the Unitarian Church an participate in a conversation about race?

Is it a mistake to participate at all? Would you go and say what you really think and let the chips fall where they may and not bother with what people are saying about you in the press? Would you go and not be honest when specifically asked why can't we be honest?

In a country that tied blacks up, covered them in honey, filled their mouths with shit, and then poured ants over them - as punishment for, say, mispronouncing a word?

A country tied black people up?

I think what you mean is that one time more than a century ago some white nut job did this to a black person (and they probably actually did nothing like that, but it was exaggerated in the retelling). And now you use that one horrific incident to characterize the overall nature of white-black relations. Which is terrifically dishonest.

Didn't most of the adults have this conversation back about 1974 or so? Why this obsession with "honest dialogues about race" thirty years later? Is constant "re-education" necessary? Wasn't 20 million people pointing and laughing at Archie Bunker every Sunday night for eight or nine years sufficient to exorcise our society of the old, bigoted white male? Who over the age of 45 would willingly participate in these ambushes

"I was telling one of my friends the other day that … I won’t even allow myself to be in the same office with a white woman without the door open."

-- This should be SOP for any man with any woman in a professional setting. Get glass doors if you need to have private conversations.

In fact, all superiors should have this as SOP. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is important. When I was an RA, this was the rule whenever I needed to talk to a resident of the opposite sex. Door was open, or I passed her off to a female RA if possible.

Regrettably, in our society, candid conversations about race are no-win propositions. Before this post, I thought that applied mostly to whites, but I see it applies both ways. That's a shame, and I wish it were otherwise. But I'm not going to blaze a path trying to change it.

People shouldn't take away from him that he's afraid/untrusting all the time, always. It sounds like he has this fear/trust issue, but that he knows it is somewhat irrational, and wants to work through it. If I had the time to hear the whole comments/statements, I bet that we'd get a more clear picture of what he meant entirely.

The problem, as this event highlights, is that people are always examining your words for offense.

I suppose it's progress that they're tearing down a black guy, instead of just white guys.

(Yes, Crack, I know, 200 years ago they tore down black guys worse. That's irrelevant, and the insistence on pretending it was this morning, just after breakfast, is one of the biggest barriers to racial harmony the country currently faces).

If you're not willing to face the ostracism mob, you're not ready to talk about race or gender or creed in an open forum.

You have to be prepared for how your words will be understood. You don't control that. This also why you really cannot judge a person based on whom was offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said.

Crack wrote: "In a country that tied blacks up, covered them in honey, filled their mouths with shit, and then poured ants over them - as punishment for, say, mispronouncing a word?"

Pretty much every country has done that, and some continue to do so today. So why does this mean that people with a certain color of skin should be treated special, now, in the United States?

I mean, Crack knows that this sort of thing was neither common nor widespread. He's using it as a Shut UP! trump card, one he can play over and over.

This is why we can't have that fabled "conversation on race." Because it comes down to white people saying, "Wasn't me, wasn't you, we fixed the laws, can we move on now?" and black people saying, "But X! or Y! or Z! was so horrible, that only we can decide when enough is enough, and you're racist if you think otherwise!"

Keeping the office door open no matter whom you maybe working with, white,black, male, female, trans, is common practice for many faculty members, and doesn't mean you distrust each one, just that it is a prudent practice. Mitchell's mistake was in assuming the open door policy only applied to him in certain cases of color and gender.

Also, in answering my questions, above, take into account that Everett is Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and pastor at Christ the Solid Rock Baptist Church. That's his line of work. If his expressions are interpreted as anti-women, he has a problem, so he did get burned by his willingness to participate and be honest.

This poor bastard was only trying to speak the language, i.e., to use race to guilt progressive white people into examining the unexamined prejudices of white people, primarily other white people. Unfortunately for him, the progressive mind is very narrow and governed from authoritarian impulses.

I suspect he exaggerated his own experiences to find "meaning" in it all, but his attempt backfired. It's not a particularly honest exchange of ideas, but it keeps everyone agitated and searching for something to do. Racial harmony is so boring.

The point is, had he been making a point about white men being prejudiced, no one would have pushed back on him or even questioned the truth of his experience. In fact, he would have been applauded. The white man is an irredeemably racist oppressor. He doesn't even realize his privilege and how it distorts his mind and blinds him to injustice.

But white women happen to be women.

I like how Althouse is attempting to stoke a black versus white woman rivalry. I suppose the reemergence of Hillary has reminded people of what happened 2008. With the NYT Abramson debacle, and now this, I think Althouse might be on to something.

"@Crack Well, what would you do if these nice NPR-moderated Madison folks wanted you to sit on a panel before 500 Madisonians at the Unitarian Church an participate in a conversation about race?"

I'd sit on the panel and talk about race. They asked.

"Is it a mistake to participate at all?"

No - we need it. Probably more than anything else.

"Would you go and say what you really think and let the chips fall where they may and not bother with what people are saying about you in the press?"

Of course - who are they? Their simplistic explanations offer no threat to reality. Maybe in the short-term, but not in the long run. I got into it with Uncle Ray the other day, about race, on the radio - actual conflict - did I sound scared? Hell no.

When whites have admitted they "don't even think about race," they've lost the argument before it's even begun.

"Would you go and not be honest when specifically asked why can't we be honest?"

Bob Ellison: "...My eldest son is about to enter college. We went to a panel discussion at the college about student life there. The dominant question was 'what will you do when my daughter is sexually assaulted?'"

You have my condolences. This DoJ Title IX assault on due process at universities is already out of control and it's still early days. You and your son need to work out a full defensive plan. Possible elements are: filmed and/or documentary consent for any encounter beyond a shoulder-pat; preemptive complaints to establish "survivor" status for subsequent kangaroo courts; pre-scripted complaints of defamation, sexual harassment and denial of equal protection etc etc to be lodged against the school and complainants as necessary.

When whites start criticizing colloquial speech they've lost the argument.

"I think what you mean"

No - you KNOW what I mean, but you think it's important (in traditional white male fashion) to get a specifically assholish two cents in, so you'll use any low-hanging branch to hoist yourself up to the podium for nothing - watch:

"I think what you mean is that one time more than a century ago some white nut job did this to a black person (and they probably actually did nothing like that, but it was exaggerated in the retelling). And now you use that one horrific incident to characterize the overall nature of white-black relations. Which is terrifically dishonest."

No, what's "terrifically dishonest" is to pretend that atrocity was an isolated incident, in the centuries-old history of black/white relations, leaving out the overlaying web of white rules, laws, intimidation, and other violence, that ensured such tales could be told in the first place.

I mean, for a man so concerned about honesty he'd interject, you sure do leave out a lot in your supposed re-telling of the facts. Whatsa matter:

Trying to make whites look better than they are - again?

That's what's gotten you guys into this mess to begin with:

The refusal to look - or act - like human beings.

Blacks in Africa are tribal and do awful things - that's been the white argument all along.

It's all a question off the progressive pecking order.Consider the black man. Does in the pecking order being black trump a woman. Or does being a man, implying a no doubt rapist, micro-agression committing male untermensch, is so low on the pecking order that being black is no longer enough to get on top, metaphorically speaking.

"Also, in answering my questions, above, take into account that Everett is Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and pastor at Christ the Solid Rock Baptist Church"Ah, I see the problem. He is a christian. Well, the solution is simple. Let him convert to islam and he will be on top of the world (the progressive world that is).

Is he from Madison? Maybe instead of getting upset at what he said, people should try to figure out why he feels his fellow citizens would suspect him of impropriety. Why does he not trust white people in such a liberal city?

Are they really mad at him because he implied that they're not as racially colorblind as they like to think they are?

I'm wondering where Pastor/Director-of-Community-Relations* Everett learned this fear. He might have learned it very young, long before he took up the role of minister.

In general, I would support careful honesty in such situations. But I suspect that Everett wishes the press hadn't been there.

It's hard to have a "conversation about race" when race is used as a marker for suspicion and distrust. Whether the distrust come from (or is directed at) Irish, Italian, Chinese, Hmong, Hawaiian, or Black.

Is the conversation-about-race supposed to remove misunderstandings, or air grievances?

-----------------------* What does a Director of Community Relations do at a University?

Can't we see where all this is going? Down a dead end street where everyone is viewed with suspicion. This emphasis on race, rather than on (dare I say) the content of one's character is shaping quite an ugly world.Is this a byproduct or deliberate outcome?

I would be interested to hear a liberal who believes in the value of these "honest conversations on race" explain with some specificity just what they think is going to be accomplished.

I've heard this claptrap all my life. Don't have to go back any further than Clinton - didn't he say he was going to lead an honest conversation on race?

White liberals have a lot of faith in talk as a cure for problems. They're always wanting to have conversations, conferences, committees, frank dialogs, issue white papers, etc, etc, etc. They've been doing this for many decades now. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made any difference. The problems don't seem to be rooted in a lack of talk.

Do they ever hear themselves when they call for yet another conversation, and say to themselves, maybe we've tried that and it just isn't working?

Or is it more that the kind of people who are passionate SWPL white liberals just have a certain kind of brain that gets pleasure from talking (like women get more pleasure from talking than men) and they simply enjoy the ritual of more "important" talk about a social issue? I think that's probably what it is. They just like talking. It doesn't matter if it gets results, because the talking itself is the purpose.

While there was and may still be a concern for retributive change, the problem stems principally from the "war on men", where there is an assumption of guilt, and equal protection favors women's rights. There have been various civil rights leaders, including ethnic and gender-oriented, who were integral to sponsoring this distrust and promoting unequal civil rights.

As for Mitchell, he needs to understand that most women, and people generally, are not vindictive, and that life is, after all, an exercise in risk management. Do what you can to reasonably manage risk factors and mitigate risk, but do not become a fanatic in the process, and punish people with preconceptions of their character.

Mitchell needs to reject the doctrines of collective sin, and certainly inherited sin. Normal people do not adhere to this degenerate religion (i.e. moral philosophy). They are incompatible with his Christian religion.

I am completely in sync with this guy. His concerns are compounded by race as well as gender. However, I went to Fry's and paid $99 for a small digital recorder that is perpetually in recording mode when I am at the university, in class and during office hours. There are no circumstances in which I interact with students....particularly, female students...that a record is not being kept of that interaction.

While I certainly do not attribute the problem to all women, I am unable to distinguish between the vast majority who pose no risk and those who can do me great harm just by making an accusation in today's climate.

What strikes me about this is that men may congregate in the corner and be all woe-is-me about it at the same time that the feminists are probably rejoicing that (finally!) our heads are down and we are behaving extra carefully....which is, after all, a useful objective.

That's fine with me. I'd rather take extra precautions on my own behalf if that means that some oaf out there feels constrained from sticking his tongue down my daughter's throat in the elevator.

Of course, my daughter would bite it off and spit it on the floor just as the doors open. His last fleeting image would be a gorgeous young woman with a PhD in astrophysics in a cute skirt and heels saying, "better put ice on that."

Blacks in Africa are tribal and do awful things - that's been the white argument all along.

Well, it's time you looked in the mirror...

Us awful white men refuse to look like human beings?

Whoops - there I go again, expecting to be able to take a black man's words at face value. I have to remember that it is my job to read his mind in the most charitable way possible. He gets to spew bullshit exaggeration, and I need to shut up and accept my collective racial guilt.

This is why a smart white man never, ever has a conversation about race or anything approaching it with a non-white in real life. There is no point to it. And frankly, my "honest" feeling based on my life experience is that it is very difficult to have a calm, rational discussion with black people. Go visit a black chat forum some time and look at the name-calling that passes for argument.

Yep, that's a stereotype - and it's true, too.

Go ahead now and spew your share of bile. This, I think, is a pretty good example of an "honest" interracial discussion and we can all see just how it accomplishes nothing.

The real solution to this is separation. Separate countries. But we'll have to have some more decades/centuries of this useless "conversation" before enough people recognize that. White liberals seem to have an endless tolerance for racial self-flagellation. I think they enjoy it in a religious sense, the way that certain fundamentalist muslim sects bash themselves on the heads and backs with swords and chains.

This should almost have a microaggression tag too. There aren't many details about the past experiences that have made this man a bigot, but I bet his retrospective understanding of what happened has been influenced by the microaggression hypsensitivity fad.

The Crack Emcee said...The whole idea of "anguishing that he's said the wrong thing" strikes me as silly:

Do some people really think they'll ALWAYS say the right thing?

Is it really terrifying not to? Momentarily embarrassing, maybe - a little - but worthy of anguish?

Remember, Madison is a left wing town. You damn well better say just the right thing in just the right way. Right now Crack you are focused on the many shortcomings of conservatives. Fair enough. But the liberals are worse in many ways, because they are so vicious in their punishment of dissent. Everett made the mistake of challenging the liberals self satisfied beliefs.

We will not have honest discussions about race until we learn to tolerate racism. Period. Racism is biologically part of humans. We all engage in preferential treatment which favors our in groups and discriminates against our out groups.

We tolerate lots of other selfish behaviors pretty well - and honest discussion is easy to come by on those topics. On this topic, I think we prefer to discourage racism by not tolerating it, and lack of honest discussion is part of the price we pay.

Seriously, his problem is the human animal's love of slander and false accusations, which many women do but excuse as "gossip."

The way it should work is we must get to know people first and then we become safe from slanderous accusation tactics. A bigot stops getting to know a stranger by preemptive slander on his skin color.

But a community's fear of strangers is a real danger zone. And this guy nailed it.

Saying all black skinned strangers are safe before getting to know them is as dangerous as stupidly fearing all black men.

The defeated South used a Segregation method which was an intentional prevention of our getting to know one another.

Segregation was enforced by whites attacking whites who dared to be too familiar and friendly with black men. The black women were OK because they raised us and took care of our homes and we knew them.

Today's Community Organizing means main streaming of slander attacks on blacks who dare to be too friendly with whites.

Why would it be so wrong not to want to be around certain types of people?

We see this in calls for all girls schools (though never dare suggest an all boys school) or mostly black (but never white) colleges or segregated dorms.

I have no problem with this provided that, should I want to, I can do the same thing and live in an all white area.

Suppose I did not want to be around African-Americans. I could move to northern Idaho or Puerto Rico (I live in PR) and could go weeks at a time without seeing one.

My reasons might be wrong, they might be stereotyped or otherwise completely bogus but what is wrong with choosing to live in a place with few if any of certain groups?

Having said that, I do not think this absolves me of my moral (and legal) responsibility to interact with them civilly and fairly when I do come into contact with them. Also a responsibility not to prevent them or discouraging them from moving into my area. And so on.

This has nothing to do with why I live in PR. We have very few African-Americans here, almost none, in fact. I might go months without running into one. OTOH, we do have plenty of blacks of various shadings with roots in Africa. I woke up next to one this morning, for example.

Amy: "Can't we see where all this is going? Down a dead end street where everyone is viewed with suspicion. This emphasis on race, rather than on (dare I say) the content of one's character is shaping quite an ugly world.Is this a byproduct or deliberate outcome?

5/27/14, 11:09 AM"

I think it's deliberate. Consider who benefits in a world characterized by chronic mutual suspicion rather than internal judgment of character. The world of suspicion requires interpreters, mediators. People who can approve (or not) your sayings and doings. Yes, it means you lose control. But it buys a sort of security.

"This emphasis on race, rather than on (dare I say) the content of one's character is shaping quite an ugly world."

The emphasis on one line in a speech - as opposed to reading the whole thing - is insulting to the intellect, no doubt about that.

"Is this a byproduct or deliberate outcome?"

It's a deliberate outcome of white people not taking the most important issue in our country seriously.

If they did, they would've read the whole damned speech, instead of endlessly quoting that one line.

WHy don't y'all ever quote the earlier line about America giving blacks "a bad check"? You skip right over that one every time. What's the matter with it? It's in the same speech. Considering the obvious massive poverty blacks endure, doesn't it bear repeating? Well?

In a country that tied blacks up, covered them in honey, filled their mouths with shit, and then poured ants over them - as punishment for, say, mispronouncing a word?

What about a country where a woman runs from an abusive husband, hides in a old man's home, only to have both she and the old man imprisoned, fed/watered, and have extremities cut off slowly, over days, until they died?

What about a country in which it was routine to kill one of twins when they were born?

What about a country where if you weren't wearing your clothing properly, or if even a little skin on your leg showed while squatting, you could be executed immediately?

What about a country that liked to hang people upside down and light a small fire underneath them, adding wood to it slowly until death?

What about that, all of which were documented as routine occurrences in sub-Saharan societies in the mid-1860's? Or are you so myopic and damaged that it only pings your radar when white people on this side of the Atlantic act like those on it's eastern shores?

"They want their children to have one or two black friends, with bonus points if their daughter's BFF has a black boyfriend who reminds them of Benson."

In San Francisco's new IT culture, they've got pretty much everyone but blacks included. There's always a mullato girl (smiling, high yella, with frizzy - not nappy - hair) but few actual blacks. It's tragic.

Gays have made room for gay blacks, I see, which is better than 5 years ago.

Many blacks are pushing shopping carts filled with all their belongings.

1. A "conversation" means endorsing the party line on the selected topic. To get in the right mindset, pretend its Kim Jong-un's brithday and you are in PyongYang or Madison. There is nothing to be gained by candor.2. I am not black and lots of white women scare me. The open door rule is simple prudence. Many years ago I taught high school. Even in those days I refused tutoring jobs unless there was a parent at home or the location was otherwise observable by third parties.3. The angry black male meme is unfair but some of that resentment has to be directed at the small but highly visible number of the "usual suspects" working hard to keep the worst stereotypes alive.

Who could be against the latest alternative theater production or subsidized art loft for aspiring artists?

Hopefully someone sees you composting in your backyard while keeping chickens and sees you not casting a judgmental glance in the direction of Jo and her latest tattooed girlfriend kissing in public.

Seattle does some things quite well, but I can easily imagine stained-glass windows depicting a saintly female figure (not objectified in any way) shown offering food to the homeless, with rays of secular kindness and appropriate concern emanating from her head.

Most places in the country aren't like this, I'm guessing.

People want to go to a place to have their beliefs and truths reaffirmed, to eat food, to meet people, and to have suffering of life made more bearable.

To be alone and to be with others.

The consequences of these ideas are the problem, just as human nature itself is made of the conflicts and contradictions within all of us (my claim to universality of some kind, and pretty sketchy at best).

I'm wondering where Pastor/Director-of-Community-Relations* Everett learned this fear. He might have learned it very young, long before he took up the role of minister.

I don't know the man's age, but perhaps his suspicions of white women can be traced back to incidents like the Scottsboro Boys. Quite a few black men were imprisoned or lynched over the words of white women.

In general, it's a good practice of any man to be very careful around women and especially children. Should they choose, they can ruin his life. He'll be guilty until proven innocent and it's almost impossible to prove himself innocent.

I tend to not go anywhere near anyone male, female, especially children within like 10 feet and without many people around.

Thankfully, where I live there are few children and even if I am around people there like a million others in the same area. Sometimes being in a congested enviro sucks BUT there will always be witnesses who have seen that you did nothing.

"community" "conversation" When you see the two in the same sentence as we do here then it is time to keep your mouth shut or find yourself somewhere else. Either word alone is reason to be on full alert.

"community" "conversation" When you see the two in the same sentence as we do here then it is time to keep your mouth shut or find yourself somewhere else. Either word alone is reason to be on full alert.

@Crack, regarding your comment at 12:27, I don't get what you don't get. Liberals don't want a Black middle class. If Blacks made it into the middle class then they'd pay taxes like the rest of us honkies, and they might vote Republican. No sir. In a liberal city Blacks must know their place.

I note that money has been poured into black communities for several decades. Are blacks better off now than they were before?

On the off-chance that Crack wants some new programs, can we get some of the money by canceling old programs that don't work. (Since things are bad despite spending lots of money, surely some of that money would be better spent elsewhere.)

I nearly spit my water all over the computer monitor. Dude, I appreciate that you've got a load of experience here, but I think maybe you are perhaps as blind to the one-sided nature of your experience as you accuse everyone else of being. I assure you that we are not in a world were suspicion falls uniquely on one group, and to the extent that you believe so you are looking at the world through the very colored glasses you accuse everyone else of having.

I've been in settings where employers fear to hire blacks because they know that in the court of public opinion, a white man's word cannot be used to overrule the word of a black woman. We live in a world were every minority firing is viewed as being hate until proven contrary, and where if you want to fire a minority whether or not you have cause, they only need cry discrimination to force the employer to pay repatriations and settle out of court.

You honestly believe mutual distrust is good for anyone, but most of all the disadvantaged? There is no progress to be have in spreading hate, fear, and mistrust. None.

"The emphasis on one line in a speech - as opposed to reading the whole thing - is insulting to the intellect, no doubt about that."

BS. I've read the speech in its entirety. There is not some secret doctrine hidden in the less well known portions of the speech which overturns the sound bites.

"It's a deliberate outcome of white people not taking the most important issue in our country seriously."

No, it's the outcome of white people not taking a serious issue in our country in the way you want. Black racism against whites is as serious of an issue as white racism against blacks. More to the point, white racism against blacks isn't even the most serious issue that blacks in America face today and the black communities failure to accept that obvious truth is among the many things that prevent real progress in their situation as a whole.

"WHy don't y'all ever quote the earlier line about America giving blacks "a bad check"? You skip right over that one every time."

No, I don't, but I'm aware of the context of that line, and if you want to accuse others of taking lines out of context, then I suggest you've just become guilty of the same crime. But tell us, what do you think MLK meant by the line about a bad check?

There are a few fields where inclusiveness for its own sake does not work. Engineering/IT is one of them. Aviation is another. Heart surgery another.

I think if you look hard enough in San Francisco you will find a lot of well placed blacks. They will be in public relations, advertising, law. They will have to be very successful to live in the city, as you know.

The most liberal city in the US has housing policies that make it nearly impossible to afford to live there. Soon there will be nothing but rich people congratulating themselves on their love of the downtrodden. And voting Democratic, of course, to demonstrate their love of blacks and latins, all gone to East Bay. Way east bay.

Is it really terrifying not to? Momentarily embarrassing, maybe - a little - but worthy of anguish?"

In most cases, not it is not terrifying. BUT with discussions of race, the consequences of a poor communicated thought are disproportionate to the offense. And I am not talking about Donald Sterling. He was a hateful moron. I am talking about, for example, what people like YOU said about him:

Drago (and his many sockpuppets) spend a lot of time complaining about what other people aren't outraged about, and yet never seems to be outraged about the things he whines about others not caring about.

For example, we've seen him comment dozens of times about Crack not saying anything about the kidnapped girls in Nigeria (tho Crack has addressed it at least once) but have yet to see Drago speak one word of concern about those girls nor one word of condemnation against the kidnappers.

"Why is it so much easier to qualify for a white trade like broker than for a black one like cosmetologist?"

Is it? How much money does it take to enter each of those fields? Black women usually go into cosmetology because they can afford it.

"There seems to be a conscious effort by black 'leaders' to keep blacks subservient and dependent."

It's funny, but you never hear whites praising black "leaders" - only attempting to break them down - when THEY are the shepards who have been keeping the very people whites criticize alive. It's just bizarre.

If whites were more fair in their assessments - which, it is a historical fact could/can rarely be counted on in America - more blacks might take them seriously. Y'all forget:

Whites had little good to say about MLK before he was killed - and blacks have never forgotten that as you criticize his friends (like Jesse) and followers (like Sharpton). You only shame yourselves by trying to disconnect them from the larger mission they've been honorably entrusted with.

Where are whites' "great men" on race today?

Screaming "Don't be a victim!" while cowering, from the prospect of their impending minority status, after acting like complete assholes.

"Plenty of connivance by whites as well but blacks seem to be at the forefront."

Those whites (who you portray, here, in a passive voice) actually are the all-powerful, controlling the wealth and direction of almost the entire country, but you CHOOSE (Very Important Distinction) to focus all of our energy and anger on any bit player you can your hands on - as long as he's black, right? Because that makes you - as a white person - "feel" like (another Very Important Distinction) you're attacking the problem of the corrupt society white's created and salute every Fourth of July?

"@Crack, regarding your comment at 12:27, I don't get what you don't get. Liberals don't want a Black middle class. If Blacks made it into the middle class then they'd pay taxes like the rest of us honkies, and they might vote Republican. No sir. In a liberal city Blacks must know their place."

No, as usual, you conservatives will place "liberal" where "white supremacy" should be.

Now that's paranoia. That anyone could still be freaking out about an incident months old that lasted thirty seconds and in which nothing frakkin' happened is a bit mind-blowing.

What were you expecting? That she'd go all Tawana Brawley on your ass? I have news for you: The police, in common with most of the rest of the population, are coming rapidly to the conclusion that "racial incidents" ought to be presumed false unless proven true.

The Reverend Billy Graham had a policy never to be anywhere alone with another woman who wasn't his wife. He studiously waited on another or got off an elevator if the only other passenger would have been a female. Race was not involved in Reverend Graham's calculus, however.

I do not believe that is a healthy societal position to take although I understand Reverend Graham's motivation for his personal rule.

"Is it a mistake to participate at all? Would you go and say what you really think and let the chips fall where they may and not bother with what people are saying about you in the press? Would you go and not be honest when specifically asked why can't we be honest?"

This reminds me of those questions your friends ask, "What would you do if you won the lottery?"

And of course, we all think we'd be charitable, and do good things with it, etc. But when you look at those who won the lottery, the picture isn't so nice.

So how do you suppose Crack is going to answer your question?

How about first, Crack get an important job in the community. Then he gets married and has some children. Buys a home. Has some assets. Then when he realizes that his wife and children and bills all depend on his continued employment, then let's see what he'd say.

After reading some of the crap pouring out of Crack's keyboard I spent a little spare time looking at what I think are black activist web sties to see if I could understand how the nonsensical CE viewpoint got traction.

Epiphany:

"White Privilege" is a way to say "Majority Rule" and make it sound mean. It fits perfectly. You can't get around it, it is not solvable (as long as there is a white majority). "Kill the white man" makes sense (as making black the majority). Raw jealousy gets conflated with the sense of repression, anything bad happenstance can be blamed on it, the individual is no longer responsible for failures -- it's the system man.

"The Reverend Billy Graham had a policy never to be anywhere alone with another woman who wasn't his wife. He studiously waited on another or got off an elevator if the only other passenger would have been a female. Race was not involved in Reverend Graham's calculus, however. I do not believe that is a healthy societal position to take although I understand Reverend Graham's motivation for his personal rule."

You are going to get accused of sex discrimination with a policy like that. What if as a female law professor I was willing to converse with female students with my office door shut but would not allow a male student to talk to me with the door closed? It's blatant sex discrimination, and it's judging the individual by a stereotype.

"You are going to get accused of sex discrimination with a policy like that. What if as a female law professor I was willing to converse with female students with my office door shut but would not allow a male student to talk to me with the door closed? It's blatant sex discrimination, and it's judging the individual by a stereotype."

Better to be accused of sex discrimination than sexual impropriety or assault.

Whereas Graham had good reason to worry about false accusations and extortion, you do not. It's highly unlikely that the male student in your hypothetical would make any accusations against you, in part because most people would not believe him. There's a definite double standard there, and you aren't accounting for it.

Whites had little good to say about MLK before he was killed (true)- and blacks have never forgotten that as you criticize his friends (like Jesse) and followers (like Sharpton) ( two grifters and criminals). You only shame yourselves (with jackson and Sharpton there is no honor) by trying to disconnect them from the larger mission they've been honorably entrusted with(lay with dogs and rise with fleas).

Is it? How much money does it take to enter each of those fields? Black women usually go into cosmetology because they can afford it.

What does that mean? I can't parse it in any way that makes sense. If it takes 1500 hours to enter one trade (cosmetology) and 150 to enter another (broker) Seems like the second is going to be a lot cheaper to get into.

So you are saying that black lower economic class women have more money than white middle class women?

Really?

Although, after you saying saying yesterday that the South did better economically than the north both before and after the war between the states I guess you will say anything, won't you? Really doesn't matter if it makes any factual sense or not.

If cosmetology required 150 hours it would be cheaper to get into and more black women would be able to enter the profession.

As for leaders, how have they done for blacks so far? Blacks have run a number of major cities for 40-50 years now.

Detroit is probably the most visible example. You really think blacks there are better off after 40 years of black rule than before? (Statistics belie that)

Or Newark, Cleveland and other cities.

What have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton accomplished that has helped blacks in general? I don't mean "providing a strong presence", "speaking truth to power", "raising consciousness or such" That is just talk.

What have they actually accomplished. Can you give us an example or two?

Or, for a black with actual power, how about Obama? What has he done to help blacks? In what ways are blacks better off today than in 2008? Employment? That is way up among whites and blacks but especially among blacks. Education?

Tell us a thing or two that he has accomplished. Not pretty words but accomplishments.

I guess that a city as racist as Madison is has to make a lot of noise denying it. Seems to me that rather than all this verbiage, Madisonians would do better if they used their energy to remediate actual racism.

If Madison is not the most racist city in the US they certainly seem to have good claim to be in the running. Anyone care to suggest cities that are more racist than Madison?

Madison is the most racist, or one of the most racist cities in the US.

See this report from the Wisconsin Council on Families and Children

http://racetoequity.net/dev/wp-content/uploads/WCCF-R2E-Report.pdf

Black/white unemployment Dane County 25/5% US 18/8%

Black/white children living in poverty 75/5% Madison, 39/14% US

Black/white Students who do not take ACT 79/44%, US 50/41%

Black/white juvenile arrest rates 469/77 per 1000, US 71/33

And so on. Read the whole thing.

So Madisonians, get your own house in order before throwing stones at others.

So which is it for San Francisco? Liberal paradise or racist hellhole that won't hire blacks as programmers? Your being there for 28 years should give you and us some great insights into the city and its migration leftwards. I lived on the rich white peninsula during the 1980s but was in the city enough to have an idea about its real soul.

Not this one. Honest conversations need to happen. Kudos to him and I hope he keeps speaking. I also hope the "gaspers" learn that in order to have an honest conversation, the space needs be perceived as safe. People will have their guard up, otherwise...and we get nowhere.

The Billy Graham rule makes sense for someone like Billy Graham. He's a celebrity that many people would love to puncture for something like womanizing.

It doesn't make sense for most of us. We are not all targets all the time, and most people, even most female and black employees, actually aren't grifters.

People deserve privacy in some situations, like when discussing salary or interpersonal problems in the workplace. White, male managers who hide behind the "she might sue me!" curtain would be wimps who should not be managers.

I think white people over the last forty years have had a lot of bad experiences with affirmative action in the way of bad bosses and losing out on promotions but it all doesn't matter the way it might if we thought solely about those bad experiences because we've had a lot of good experiences in the way of good bosses and friends who were also where they were as a result of affirmative action.

And anyhow we all have relatives or our close friends have relatives who are African-American.

But the terms of any imaginable NPR-led "national dialogue" simply would not allow this reality as it is lived to be even mentioned, let alone discussed. Probably it is better that way. The Secret Life of the American Whites, ta da, Another Important NPR National Conversation - I can just hear the rubbish.

I'm happy to be alone in a room with a closed door with white, black, asian, hispanic, etc. women. Except when I was teaching, then we made sure all the doors were open. Too many sexual harassment claims.

I put them there because the white guy did. Now you say they should be there. If you're white, I'd think about that.

Why would you suggest, with 97% of blacks behind them, Jesse and Al should be denied the title of leaders? Because you don't like them? Or because you say so?

"However, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Janis Rogers Brown, etc. would probably like to have a word with you."

They represent 3% of blacks. Do you see why whites can't pick our leaders? They can't even IDENTIFY them by the numbers - and the numbers are massive:

97% over here - 3% over there - and white conservatives get it wrong every time.

They didn't like MLK either, you know. Kinda hard to buy, that blacks are the problem, when that's the case.

350 years of brutality over there - 50 years of easing over here - and white conservatives say it's even, every time.

Didn't somebody say math and engineering were unforgiving? I think I've found a loophole. Let's call it "The House Negro." That's when a tiny number is given the weight of any massive number presented.

For the record - SF is experiencing a series of small earthquakes as I write this.

"And if you mean by 'Leaders', people like Barrack Obama, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, you hear plenty of 'white people' praising them. White liberals."

And that's because it's as natural as breathing for white conservatives to attack blacks.

Thanks for clearing that up.

"It's almost like many people judged other people by their politics and ideas rather than their skin color."

And that's just sad:

In a nation that's historically insisted on judging it's citizens by their skin color - and not their ideas - changing the rules without warning is, and was, totally unfair.

So, in other words, he is feeling anguished about doing what nearly every HR department in nearly every reasonably large company demands that male staff members to do when in the presence of any female, except he doesn't feel the need to observe this standard of behavior when in the presence of black females or females from other minority groups. Welcome to the patriarchy, pal!

This doesn't speak well for whites - or the conservative claims to history.

and blacks have never forgotten that as you criticize his friends (like Jesse) and followers (like Sharpton) ( two grifters and criminals).

How petty this comment is, in the face of the massive crimes you're comfortable with - those of the United States against it's black citizens - those you proudly defend and salute. Al and Jesse don't do that.

Your sense of proportion, and of where condemnation should lie, are both totally out-of-whack. You'll never get blacks to part with Al and Jesse when you're standing so deep in the muck yourself. You stand with slavers and Jim Crow and theft and murder and the KKK and rape and discrimination and prejudice and oppression and no one can do anything about any of it so we guess we'll keep it because what's anybody going to do, right? You're white.

You only shame yourselves (with jackson and Sharpton there is no honor) by trying to disconnect them from the larger mission they've been honorably entrusted with(lay with dogs and rise with fleas).

Dude, that's a description of slavery in America - the founding act of this nation.

The professor wrote: What if as a female law professor I was willing to converse with female students with my office door shut but would not allow a male student to talk to me with the door closed? It's blatant sex discrimination, and it's judging the individual by a stereotype.

Excellent point, and I have noticed that recent harassment trainings offered by larger organizations have been emphasizing (at least in writing) the common sense point that all employees must receive equal treatment by policy, with exceptions allowed only under "reasonable accommodation" clauses, etc. of certain legislation/regulation. In practice, however, it is the rare instructor who actually follows that policy during a harassment workshop or seminar.

"As for leaders, how have they done for blacks so far? Blacks have run a number of major cities for 40-50 years now."

Boy, you guys are really putting a lot of emphasis on that 40-50 years - after 400 years of outright hostilities and, even now, constant harassment. I can tell how much you're rooting for us, John, fellow American that you are.

"Your being there for 28 years should give you and us some great insights into the city and its migration leftwards."

You're describing a place that no longer exists, really, that most blacks left long ago. The gays are now mainstream, the hippies are discredited (and homeless) and an army of Mexicans walk the 10 miles to the Excelsior when daylight approaches, so as not to diminish the decor when the Google buses start rolling the new millionaires to-and-fro, with their lowered blinds, inside, to avoid seeing what's outside. Unless it's a hot new restaurant featuring cocktails at $25.00 apiece.

That's the new SF.

"I lived on the rich white peninsula during the 1980s but was in the city enough to have an idea about its real soul."

Take my word for it:

A stake's been driven so far into that sucker, it'll never rise again,..

"In a nation that's historically insisted on judging it's citizens by their skin color - and not their ideas - changing the rules without warning is, and was, totally unfair."

You keep unintentionally revealing what you really mean.

You've had 50 years of warning. You didn't live in the time prior to that. I'm not going to judge you by your skin color no matter how hard you try to force me. I grew up in Jamaica.

Your getting judged by your ideals, and not your skin color. Deal with it. Why is it that 95% of the IT guys I know with skin color darker than mine grew up outside this country? If the problem was skin color and white oppression, why are guys from Nigeria and Zambia succeeding? Why is it that African immigrants out earn white Americans as a whole? You need to realize that your biggest problem isn't someone else's hate, but your own.

I am responding to your comment at 8:52 AM where you bring up the torture of blacks. I haven't read all your other comments since I have been at work today, but I have some advice for you based on that one comment. It seems to me that you see yourself as a victim of the attitude toward blacks that allowed the abusers to commit torture. I think holding that view, true or not, hurts you.

If you want to have good mental health I suggest you actively reject victimhood, even if you really are a victim. That self-image leads away from a good life. Bill Cosby thinks so, too. Here is a link to an article on his thoughts:

OK< so there was 400 years of African slavery, Jim Crow after Reconstruction, the end of both Malcolm X and MLK in the 60's.

Now that you push that the past is never truly past, what is your solution?

Crack, what do you want? Do you want White people in gas chambers? Or are you just trolling because you have no solution?

I am curious; Because if the past never goes away, we can all look at the End of Yugoslavia (where the modern warfare was over battles in the Middle Ages)or the Arab Nations who are still pissed about the Crusades,as a Future Crack Paradise.

"How petty this comment is, in the face of the massive crimes you're comfortable with - those of the United States against it's black citizens - those you proudly defend and salute. Al and Jesse don't do that.

Your sense of proportion, and of where condemnation should lie, are both totally out-of-whack. You'll never get blacks to part with Al and Jesse when you're standing so deep in the muck yourself. You stand with slavers and Jim Crow and theft and murder and the KKK and rape and discrimination and prejudice and oppression and no one can do anything about any of it so we guess we'll keep it because what's anybody going to do, right? You're white."

This is yet another reason why I own guns.

Because guys like Crack can justify no end of harm towards me and mine with thoughts like the above.

Pretty frightening stuff.

Al and Jesse can't be bad, or criminals, because in the past bad things happened to their ancestors?

"However, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Janis Rogers Brown, etc. would probably like to have a word with you."

They represent 3% of blacks. Do you see why whites can't pick our leaders?

Whites picked Obama. Or at least had a big role in picking him. One of the reasons for that is Obama presented himself as a leader who is black, not a leader of blacks. There is nothing wrong with being a leader of blacks, but people like Condi Rice and Obama have chosen a different role.

It's hard to be a "black leader" rather than a "leader of blacks." Whites and blacks can treat such people with suspicion and far worse. You know the drill.

The way in which conservative "leaders who are black" are treated by many liberals is astonishingly vicious. But it gets a pass, because somehow it's seen as political rather than racial. I'm not so sure that it is.

"Can we at least agree that intolerance and incredible cruelty towards 'other' races seems to be nearly universal?"

What's happening there is disgusting but, to pretend it's happening in a vacuum - as though the hatred for whites just sprang up from nothing (as white's hatred for blacks did to feed their greed) is equally gross and depraved.

Blacks aren't killing the "other" - they're killing the people they're most familiar with - their most brutal oppressors, over centuries, and you know it. When THAT was occurring, where were you? Supporting the United States on staying the course? Sit-the-fuck-down.

The kind of lies you're telling - the blatant attempt, to deceive whites and blacks, about the nature of reality - that's what feeds murder of the kind you *claim* to deplore. The only thing "nearly universal" about what you're doing is the white capacity for compounding the original sins.

Your actions, Sir, are precisely why there is killing in South Africa,...

garage the hopeless re: Michael: "Great comment. Had nothing to do with the huge jump in the number of suburban poor, but still a great comment."

Yes, actually it does.

But your ignorance precludes you from seeing the point.

Michael is discerning that the poor who have made the move to the suburbs to take advantage of opportunities there that don't exist is democrat-run workers paradises are the very ones who tend to climb the socio-economic ladder and not remaining poor.

Michael is looking at this situation in a non-static analysis way.

Which is why you are flummoxed.

The rise in suburban poor comes from the poor fleeing the places the dems adore and, in fact, the number of poor who have moved to the suburbs is actually larger than the numbers shown because some of those who relocated have moved up.

And still, to this very moment, not a word of outrage or protest from crack regarding the kidnapping and rape and selling into sex slavery of young black african girls by cracks bestest islamist buddies.

"What's happening there is disgusting but, to pretend it's happening in a vacuum - as though the hatred for whites just sprang up from nothing (as white's hatred for blacks did to feed their greed) is equally gross and depraved."

This is one of the most interesting things Crack has ever written.

He doesn't even know how greedy he is, or how it applies directly to him and those who hate whites, to feed their greed.

Is it true that "Suburban poverty surpassed urban poverty in number sometime in the 2000s"? Depends on what you mean, doesn't it? The graph shows that total number of poor people in suburbs passed the total number of poor people in cities, but what about the percentages?

If the suburbs had a higher total population than the cities - and they certainly do - it is perfectly possible for the suburbs to have much lower percentages of poor people than the cities, while still having higher total numbers.

And if the suburbs were growing faster than the cities - and I'm pretty sure they were - it would be perfectly possible for the percentage of poor in the suburbs to stay level or even drop a bit while the total numbers went up, and for the percentage of poor in the cities to increase while the total number dropped.

garage mahal's link is - as usual - worthless, and does not prove anything like what he want it to prove.

Crack systematically ignores the tens of millions of blacks enslaved by arabs/muslims over the centuries all to advance the narrative required to advance his political requirements of this day and age.

The suffering and misery and bondage suffered by tens of millions of africans by non-whites has to be ignored lest cracks house of cards collapses.

Can you imagine what a black african in bondage to a muslim slave master would think to see cracks careful and studied indifference to such suffering?

No crack. No lessons in race will be accepted coming from the likes of you. An enabler of oppressors today.

Michael is discerning that the poor who have made the move to the suburbs to take advantage of opportunities there that don't exist is democrat-run workers paradises are the very ones who tend to climb the socio-economic ladder and not remaining poo

The rise in suburban poor is attributed to urban poor moving to the suburbs for better opportunities. Just think about how utterly stupid that is. Never mind, you don't think.

Yes. You did. Both you and ARM were chatting up the "growing economy" under obama, neglecting to take note that we had NEGATIVE GDP in the last qtr.

"Also, in answering my questions, above, take into account that Everett is Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and pastor at Christ the Solid Rock Baptist Church. That's his line of work. If his expressions are interpreted as anti-women, he has a problem, so he did get burned by his willingness to participate and be honest."

I'm no betamax, and can't use humor as an excuse, just dull anger for my comments misusing your webspace, a space I appreciate and need to up my game in.

The truth is I am afraid when you write something I obviously disagree with; I'm being played the fool again right?So my response, macho in my own mind, is to do what I do.

Most times I agree when it comes to basic issues, not frivolous issues impacting a tiny per cent of our fellow citizens (but mostly unquestioning, small subjects). In fact, I remember thinking it incredible GOP-voting-orientated readers attacked the host and wanted her removed from her job, magically thinking things could somehow improve from a GOP-voting-orientated point of view if Althouse retires to CO.

Look, with Steyn I say he is a Churchill in-the-making as a joke, knowing something better ain't gonna be chosen any time soon by the choosers such as Ann Coulter's hero's who admit folks to Harvard, the only institution that matters*.

*This is funny because Steve Barrett, over at nalert.blogspot.com hates Buckley because of his irrational fear of Skull and Bones, a Yale institution more powerful than everything but my Kochs.

**Oh no. I tried, I really really tried this time, like Bart Simpson, and I failed, to respectfully address the issue.

Oh my.***

***Do extra spaces in comments come from extra-so-deleted comments from a commenter's comment box? I just deleted something, and I know you won't believe this, but I just deleted something self-indulgent, and thought hey "maybe somebody else has done this once on the internets."

I would explain it to you one potato two potato bit I see you might not get it. So i will try this.

When a poor person moves to the suburbs the number of poor people in that suburb goes up. With me so far? The poor person gets a job in the suburb but because he just got the job he is still poor. So far so good? Now for the hard bit. The poor person, because they had the energy to move to the suburb to look for work is automatically more energetic than the por person who did not and, self selection at work, is more thsn likely to climb out of poverty. In the meantime other poor people with ambition follow suit. The suburbs are then temporarily poorer than they were before.And those people in the suburbs that dont like poor people living around them move further out.

Michael:Here's an analogy. If average income of illegal immigrant were (hypthetically) flat or nearly so, would that mean immigrants were stupid to sneak across the border? It might mean that the income of each individual illegal was rising fairly steeply with experience, but the average stayed low because more and more recent arrivals were jumping on the bottom of the ladder, brining the overall average down. Aggregating incomes and other numbers is complicated, if the size of composition of the group changes over time. There are similar problems with comparing average incomes or poverty rates in 'cities' and 'suburbs', whose absolute and relative sizes are not constant.

As Barbie once put it, "Math is hard". Like life in general, math is especially hard when you're dumb.

In white-majority cities, every large institution (University, utility company, hospital, etc) has one or more college-educated blacks with bullshit job titles containing the word "Community". They don't have any actual duties, but they are deployed from time to time as flack-catchers. The job description does not actually specify that they must be black, but when they retire (which happens seldom), all the local black hustlers scramble. No white person need apply.

The poor minister is sometimes suspicious of white motives and a little fearful at whites' ability to ruin reputations. C'mon folks. He'd have to be Jesus Christ Himself to not occasionally have these thoughts.

There's almost always gossip, innuendo and speculation about ministers, pastors, etc. Not being alone with women of any race seems a sensible precaution, actually. Maybe especially so for a minister.